June 7, 2012 (LifeSitenews.com) - A New Mexico appeals court has upheld a lower court verdict that a photography studio that refused to shoot a same-sex “wedding” on religious grounds is guilty of “sexual orientation discrimination” under state law.

According to the court’s verdict, the trouble began for Elane Photography when the company was contacted by lesbian Vanessa Willock asking if they could photograph a “commitment ceremony” for a Willock and her “partner.” The company, owned by Christian couple Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin, responded stating that they only shoot traditional weddings, and do not do “same-sex weddings,” but thanked Willock for her interest.

The following day, Willock’s anonymous “partner” sent an email to Elane Photography stating that she was going to “marry,” without stating that the “marriage” would be between herself and a woman. She asked if the company could travel to the location of the event, and was told that it could.

The two emails would be used as proof that the Huguenins were discriminating against Willock in her suit against the company, and resulted in a judgment of $6,637.94 against the defendant.

Although the government of New Mexico does not recognize same-sex “marriage,” civil unions, or domestic partnerships for homosexuals, the court ruled that Elane Photography had engaged in illegal discrimination based on sexual preference under the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA).

The court brushed aside the claim that photography is a form of “speech” protected under state and federal law, ruling, “The NMHRA does not force Elane Photography to endorse any message or modify its own speech in any way. Rather, the NMHRA requires Elane Photography merely to offer its photography services without discrimination against any member of a protected class.”

It also dismissed the argument that compelling the owners of the company to photograph such weddings would constitute a violation of freedom of religion, stating, “the burden on freedom of religion experienced by Elane Photography is unclear.”

The Alliance Defense Fund, which was representing the couple, has decided to appeal the case to a higher court.

“Americans in the marketplace should not be subjected to legal attacks for simply abiding by their beliefs,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence. “Should the government force a videographer who is an animal rights activist to create a video promoting hunting and taxidermy?

“Of course not, and neither should the government force this photographer to promote a message that violates her conscience. Because the U.S. Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling artists to promote a message they disagree with, we will certainly appeal this decision to the New Mexico Supreme Court.”

Law professor and legal commentator Eugene Volokh denounced the decision as an attack on freedom of speech protections.

“It seems to me that the right to be free from compelled speech includes the right not to create First-Amendment-protected expression — photographs, paintings, songs, press releases, or what have you — that you disagree with, even if no-one would perceive you as endorsing that expression,” he wrote in his blog, the Volokh Conspiracy.

Volokh cites the U.S. Supreme Court case of Wooley v. Maynard (1978), in which a state license plate containing a motto that drivers disagreed with was seen as violating the first amendment, even though no reasonable person would be believe that the bearers of the plate were in agreement with the motto.

“It follows even more strongly, I think, that people should have a First Amendment right not to create expression that they don’t wish to create, regardless of whether outsiders would perceive such creation as an endorsement of the message,” said Volokh.

It is an interesting story. It appears to me the lesbian couple went out of their way to sue these folks based on their beliefs, and I find that troubling. Whether you support gay rights or not, forcing people to do business with those whose lifestyles are an affront to their religious beliefs really should not be the business of government. At least, that is my opinion.

It is an interesting story. It appears to me the lesbian couple went out of their way to sue these folks based on their beliefs, and I find that troubling. Whether you support gay rights or not, forcing people to do business with those whose lifestyles are an affront to their religious beliefs really should not be the business of government. At least, that is my opinion.

I agree. This is not an area where the government should be able to force you to do business against your beliefs. Why are their "rights" more important that someone else's? This does sound a bit like a set-up to me....especially when the anonymous partner contacted them the second time knowing their feelings in the matter. A chance at a grandstand,seems to me. Using the couple's religious views to gain ground in a political matter. After they refused why didn't the women just find someone else? Especially if their union was the main focus.

It is an interesting story. It appears to me the lesbian couple went out of their way to sue these folks based on their beliefs, and I find that troubling. Whether you support gay rights or not, forcing people to do business with those whose lifestyles are an affront to their religious beliefs really should not be the business of government. At least, that is my opinion.

I agree. This is not an area where the government should be able to force you to do business against your beliefs. Why are their "rights" more important that someone else's? This does sound a bit like a set-up to me....especially when the anonymous partner contacted them the second time knowing their feelings in the matter. A chance at a grandstand,seems to me. Using the couple's religious views to gain ground in a political matter. After they refused why didn't the women just find someone else? Especially if their union was the main focus.

I smell a set-up.

Logged

If it's true what they say, that GOD created us in His image, then why should we not love creating, and why should we not continue to do so, as carefully and ethically as we can, on whatever scale we're capable of?

The choice is simple; refuse to create, and refuse to grow, or build, with care and love.

Though a particularly partisan website has been linked to again, it looks like the court upheld the law in New Mexico. I don't know, however, if I agree with the law. Nakuyabi, I go in and wash the dishes. How's THAT?

Though a particularly partisan website has been linked to again, it looks like the court upheld the law in New Mexico. I don't know, however, if I agree with the law. Nakuyabi, I go in and wash the dishes. How's THAT?

In other words, like all the far-left partisan propaganda rags whose articles you re-post here, you believe "the law" can take away people's Constitutional rights to freedom of association, conscience, expression, and religion if a bunch of judicial tyrants say so? Better hope the next government mandate doesn't force you to do my dishes on the grounds that refusal would be discriminatory, AHD!

Though a particularly partisan website has been linked to again, it looks like the court upheld the law in New Mexico. I don't know, however, if I agree with the law. Nakuyabi, I go in and wash the dishes. How's THAT?

In other words, like all the far-left partisan propaganda rags whose articles you re-post here, you believe "the law" can take away people's Constitutional rights to freedom of association, conscience, expression, and religion if a bunch of judicial tyrants say so? Better hope the next government mandate doesn't force you to do my dishes on the grounds that refusal would be discriminatory, AHD!

Obviously, you don't get it. I wrote: "I don't know if I agree with the law." Frankly, and to clarify for your sake, I thought the lawsuit frivolous. I don't live in NM and I didn't vote for that law. There is a saying: "the law is the law". If citizens don't like it, they need to change it.

I don't link to partisan websites like you do, merely mainstream ones. Yeh yeh yeh, let's not get into that tired old argument about "leftist" leaning mainstream media. I'm not responsible for the "media" whichever way it may or may not lean. I have often described my news links as "crappy" or "dopey". Doesn't mean the topic isn't worth discussing. Now, as for you, watch the video, get the joke, and lighten up. And if you look at it, it was about washing your dishes! It was intended as a contrite posting, not an indictment. Cool your jets before you p!ss me off.

Obviously, you don't get it. I wrote: "I don't know if I agree with the law." Frankly, and to clarify for your sake, I thought the lawsuit frivolous. I don't live in NM and I didn't vote for that law. There is a saying: "the law is the law". If citizens don't like it, they need to change it.

I don't link to partisan websites like you do, merely mainstream ones. Yeh yeh yeh, let's not get into that tired old argument about "leftist" leaning mainstream media. I'm not responsible for the "media" whichever way it may or may not lean. I have often described my news links as "crappy" or "dopey". Doesn't mean the topic isn't worth discussing. Now, as for you, watch the video, get the joke, and lighten up. It was intended as a contrite posting, not an indictment. Cool your jets before you p!ss me off.

Um, no, the law is not the law if it contradicts the Constitution, and it's not just the people who need to overturn this law, but the courts, who are sworn to uphold that Constitution. This is a pretty clear case not merely of a frivolous lawsuit, but of a strident flouting of the Bill of Rights. Not only should the defendants have been acquitted, but the law itself should have been struck down as a clear violation of the Constitution. This is a matter of legal logic, not how people feel about the law. I also see it as a bit of a warning to us all about what comes from legislating against "discriminatory" thinking.

You sound pretty mad already. Considering how you describe some of your own links, must you be so bothered if I think the topics of my own links (however vulgarly you describe them or disdain their sources) to be just as much worth discussing?

Obviously, you don't get it. I wrote: "I don't know if I agree with the law." Frankly, and to clarify for your sake, I thought the lawsuit frivolous. I don't live in NM and I didn't vote for that law. There is a saying: "the law is the law". If citizens don't like it, they need to change it.

I don't link to partisan websites like you do, merely mainstream ones. Yeh yeh yeh, let's not get into that tired old argument about "leftist" leaning mainstream media. I'm not responsible for the "media" whichever way it may or may not lean. I have often described my news links as "crappy" or "dopey". Doesn't mean the topic isn't worth discussing. Now, as for you, watch the video, get the joke, and lighten up. It was intended as a contrite posting, not an indictment. Cool your jets before you p!ss me off.

Um, no, the law is not the law if it contradicts the Constitution, and it's not just the people who need to overturn this law, but the courts, who are sworn to uphold that Constitution. This is a pretty clear case not merely of a frivolous lawsuit, but of a strident flouting of the Bill of Rights. Not only should the defendants have been acquitted, but the law itself should have been struck down as a clear violation of the Constitution. This is a matter of legal logic, not how people feel about the law. I also see it as a bit of a warning to us all about what comes from legislating against "discriminatory" thinking.

You sound pretty mad already. Considering how you describe some of your own links, must you be so bothered if I think the topics of my own links (however vulgarly you describe them or disdain their sources) to be just as much worth discussing?

Not mad at all! Amused to debate with you. And the law is the law, though it may be unconstitutional or wrong. Don't have any strong opinion particularly since I don't know much about this one in particular. "Bothered". Hey, I know those Yahoo stories are typically badly written and poorly edited. Perhaps your blogger links are perfection and my links are crappy and dopey. Personal opinion in a blog is rarely worth discussing in a forum, though. Next.

I'm as right wing as they come and I am finding this debate tiresome. Naku, my lad, take a chill pill!!!!

This is telling.

Political discussions are currently tolerated on this board so long as they remain civil and friendly. However, they're not really a part of the culture here. There are plenty of venues on the web where you can discuss these issues as forcefully as you want. Here we prefer to focus on bad movies. The harder you try to push a partisan position here, the more people will instinctively resist you.

Logged

"The basic plot is that Donna Speir and Hope Marie Carlton, the two undercover DEA agent Playboy Playmates from the last movie, are still running around in jungle shorts, cowboy boots and spaghetti strap T-shirts, firing their machine guns at drug smugglers, Filipino communist guerrillas, and corrupt federal agents while their two friends, Lisa London and Miss May 1984 Patty Duffek, lounge around the pool a lot and talk on speaker phones that look like fax machines."-Joe Bob on SAVAGE BEACH